Planet Birthing

holoscience.com /wp/planet-birthing/

By Wal Thornhill May 25, 2003

Dan Falk prefaced a recent news report in Nature, on the subject of planet formation, with these words:

Our knowledge of planets outside our Solar System has been transformed in the past few
years. But these new-found worlds dont look much like our planetary neighbours, and no
one is quite sure why.

At a rough glance the traditional nebular disk model used to explain the formation of planets in our solar system
seems plausible. After all, the orbits of the planets do describe a thick disk about the Sun. But could this model
be wrong? It requires that the planetary orbits be in the same plane. Instead we find them tilted at substantial
angles to the Suns equator. Now that new discoveries challenge our cherished notions it is time to revisit the
basic questions:

Are planets formed slowly by accretion over millions of years or born suddenly and violently from a
larger body? Does the solar system have a more complex history?

The likelihood is extremely high that planets do not form slowly. The accretion disk model is riddled with
assumptions about initial conditions and glosses over many problems that have remained stubbornly unsolved.
For example, there are severe problems in getting a rotating nebula to collapse gravitationally to form a star in
the first place. The large rotational momentum of a cosmic nebula has somehow to be dissipated. And an
embedded magnetic field conspires to prevent collapse. The Nobel Prize winner, the late Hannes Alfvn, wrote
in Evolution of the Solar System, ..the generally accepted theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred
unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics.

The protoplanetary disk model assumes that the planets were formed largely where we find them now. That
seems not to be true. Long-term computer integrations of physically different models of the solar system show
chaotic behavior (that can mean planets being thrown out of the solar system) in an interval of 3 to 30 million
years a blink of the eye in the accepted age of the system. The authors of one study described this result as
very striking and disturbing. (Chaotic Evolution of the Solar System, Sussman & Wisdom, Science, Vol. 257, 3
July 1992, pp. 56-62). If this is so we cannot use the present plan of the solar system to say anything about the
initial plan or its evolution.

The protoplanetary disk model also assumes that planets can accrete by collisions of particles in the disk. A
recent study of hyper-velocity impacts between small objects, which assumes very different orbits of those
particles, showed that the crater formed was larger than the impactor with the result that fragmentation rather
than accretion is the rule. Also, objects in similar orbits about a central mass merely swap places without
colliding. For example, two moons of Saturn, Epimetheus and Janus, swap orbits every 4 years or so. These
problems have resulted in a spate of additional ad hoc requirements to be added to computer models. For
example, the matter in the disk must have been hot and squidgy to allow particles to stick together.

In fact, the very term accretion disk used by computer modellers begs the question about the origin of such
disks observed elsewhere in the galaxy. When we see objects with strong gravitational fields ejecting huge
masses of material at great speeds we must consider the possibility that we are observing expulsion disks.
After all, it is not clear what is responsible for energetic expulsions if we are looking at systems governed solely
by gravity. Explanations based upon magically conjured and trapped magnetic fields merely shove the problem
out of sight within the central star or hypothetical black hole. And without exception they ignore the electrical
origin of magnetic fields.

When it comes to detailed examination of the planets, theories go from bad to worse. No plausible model exists
1/9
to explain the fruit salad of characteristics we find. A good theory should explain the obvious dichotomy between
the rocky planets and the gas giants without requiring more ad hoc early conditions. It must explain the odd axial
tilts of the planets. After all, they behave as giant gyroscopes whose spin axes will merely wobble when struck by
another sizeable object. We should expect the giant planets to have their equators in the plane of the ecliptic but
we have Saturn tipped over by 27 degrees and Uranus by 98 degrees!

If we are ever to be satisfied that we understand the basic principles of planet formation we must include all of
the information available to us from human observations of the sky. As Alfvn wrote,:

Because no one can know a priori what happened four to five billion years ago, we must start
from the present state of the solar system and, step by step, reconstruct increasingly older
periods. This actualistic principle, which emphasizes reliance on observed phenomena, is the
basis for the modern approach to the geological evolution of the Earth; the present is the key to
the past. This principle should also be used in the study of the solar system.

Even in this wise advice there is an assumption that the sky we see today is the same as that seen by our
prehistoric ancestors. Recent forensic examinations of astronomical petroglyphs and global creation myths
argue strongly against such a cosy assumption. The present may not be the key to the past. It should be
remembered that theories of evolution, both geological and biological, are easily demonstrated by their effects
but remain without plausible causes. We have progressed to the point of accepting the possibility of cosmic
impacts but even they cannot explain all of the evidence. Perhaps there is a common mechanism for evolution
on Earth that includes evolution of the solar system? Perhaps the solar system has a recent history? If so,
attempts to explain the solar system by modelling theoretical initial conditions based on modern observations
must fail.

It is worth highlighting some of the unconscious assumptions with reference to Falks report, which follows in
part. The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE alternative will be outlined to give an impression of its relative simplicity.

Planet formation: Worlds apart

(Nature 422, 659 660, 2003)

Cloudy picture: computer simulations have yet

to nail down the finer points of planetary
evolution. L. Mayer, T. Quinn, J. Wadsley, J.
Stadel/Pittsburgh Supercomp. Cen.

Comment: This remark is disingenuous and

demonstrates a disturbing trend to believe that
computer game playing can reveal the truth of a
theory. Even the evolution of the gross characteristics of
the solar system remains to be nailed down. Computer
simulations can only help to eliminate some models if all of the variables are known. But that is practically never
the case in complex, real-world situations.

Less than a decade ago, planetary scientists were working with a tiny data set: the nine members
of our Solar System. But the past few years have been a boom time for planet hunters more
than 100 planets orbiting other stars have now been logged. As new detection methods come into
use, this tally is certain to climb higher.

2/9
 Not everyone is celebrating, however. Extrasolar planets have peculiar properties, and our
understanding of how planets form, which was incomplete even before the new data became
available, now looks even shakier. The newly discovered bodies have strange, highly elliptical
orbits. They are also far closer to their stars than equivalent planets in our Solar System. Amid the
thrill of discovery, planetary scientists are wondering how to make sense of the processes that
shaped these strange new worlds.

In terms of mass, the new planets are similar to Jupiter, weighing between one-tenth and ten
times as much the majority fall between 0.75 and 3.0 jovian masses. Measuring size is more
difficult, as only transit studies can provide information on the objects radius. The planet
observed using the transit method an object orbiting a star in the constellation of Pegasus is
slightly larger than Jupiter.

But thats where the similarities end. The orbits of most extrasolar planets follow elliptical paths, in
contrast to the near-circular orbits of our Solar Systems giant planets. They also orbit much
closer to their parent stars, most at a distance of less than 2 astronomical units (1 AU being the
distance between Earth and the Sun), compared with more than 5 AU for Jupiter.

It is these properties that seem to defy popular models of planetary formation. The two main
theories each start with a slowly spinning ball of gas. The hot, central part becomes a star, while
the material farther out is flattened by its rotation into a cloud known as a protoplanetary accretion
disk. This provides the raw materials from which planets form.

Comment: Here are two fundamental assumptions that drive all current models of stellar and planet genesis. The
first is that stars form simply by gravitation from a rotating accretion disk of neutral matter. The second is that
planets accrete later from the widely scattered leftovers. Both processes have theoretical difficulties and are the
most inefficient imaginable only 1% of the proposed nebula leftovers remains in the planets. Neither process
has been observed in action, merely inferred.

The idea of what goes on inside a star stems from the work of Sir Arthur Eddington in his famous 1926 work, The
Internal Constitution of Stars. He made a serious error of judgement when he applied mechanical ideal gas laws
to the Suns interior. On that basis he calculated that there would be no appreciable separation of the [electrical]
charges. It was a convenient conclusion because it simplifies the standard solar model so that it is do-able. It
seems not to have been questioned since.

In fact, atoms in the Suns strong gravitational field will distort to form small electric dipoles, with the positive
nucleus offset within each atom toward the center of the Sun. The aligned dipoles will create a radial electric
field that will tend to separate charge free electrons moving toward the surface and positive ions toward the
core. Gravitational compression inside the Sun is therefore offset by electrical expansion because like charges
repel. Stars do not require a central furnace to maintain their size. The result is that the Sun is much the same
density throughout. This was discovered decades ago by pioneering helioseismologists but not announced
because it was believed that eventually a more acceptable explanation would be found in terms of the standard
model! The enigma remains to this day. To accept the obvious conclusion would destroy the elaborate story of
the evolution and death of stars. And another source of stellar energy would be required because nuclear fusion
would be impossible in the core of an isodense star. Ah well, thats the price of progress.

However, it is acknowledged that stars can explode in a nova or supernova event because such things are
regularly observed. But the explosion mechanism remains obscure. An explosion originating in the core was
always expected to be spherically symmetric. But we observe stellar explosions to be highly directional, often
forming bipolar cones or even collimated jets. Plasma physicsts are well aware that powerful electric discharges
form thin jets, often with condensations/knots of matter along them. And a collimated jet is a prime requirement
for the birth of a planet from a star. Significantly, the light curve from stellar explosions is the same as that of
lightning.

3/9
There is a more simple and efficient process that fits the latest discoveries. It requires the expulsion, or birth of
a fully formed proto-planet from the core of a star or gas giant. Astrophysicists have not seriously considered it
because of their strongly held views about the internal nature of stars and the forces at work there.

HD 141569A is a five-million-year-old star 320 light-years away in the constellation Libra.

Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys captured this visible-light image on July 21, 2002, with a
coronagraph, which blocked light from the star, creating the black area in the center. Surrounding
the star is a tightly wound spiral-structured dust disk with two faint arms in the outer part of the
disk. One of these arms reaches toward a binary star inthe upper left of the image. NASA / M.
Clampin (STScI) et al. / ACS Science Team / ESA

This is the best image of a so-called accretion disk. It was produced on January 6 by a team headed by Mark
Clampin of the Space Telescope Science Institute. The disk contains a tight spiral structure with two diffuse arms
reaching outward like those of a spiral galaxy. It is excellent evidence for the electrical discharge nature of these
disks since plasma physicists have successfully modelled galaxy formation and produced the classic spiral
formation. That modelling requires electric currents flowing along the spiral arms. Notably it doesnt require
invisible dark matter!

The physicist, Peter Warlow, made the colorful comment in 1982 that we assume that planets are formed outside
stars for the obvious reason thats where we find them. However, We humans, equally obviously, are
outside our mothers yet we did not start there! It is far simpler and infinitely more efficient if planets are born
at intervals by the electrical ejection of charged material from the similarly charged interiors of larger bodies
gas giants from stars, and rocky planets from gas giants. We have circumstantial evidence for such a proposal in
the binary stars found after a nova outburst. Also most of the rocky bodies in the solar system closely orbit a gas
giant. Electrical ejection in a massive internal lightning flash answers the question of the source of the energy. It
is not dispersive like an explosion. The electromagnetic pinch effect will produce a jet of matter, rather like a
coronal mass ejection, only on a much grander scale. The result is a proto-planet plus a stream of gases and
meteoric debris.

The electrical expulsion model solves the many riddles of meteorites. They are the afterbirth of a new planet, not
a star. What is the origin of tiny melted spheres of silica, called chondrules, found in many meteorites? How were
they flash-heated and just as suddenly cooled? How did radioactive isotopes with half-lives measured in hours
4/9
and days become trapped in meteorites? A powerful cosmic electric discharge provides simple answers.
Astrophysicists in the past have suggested lightning in the accretion disk as an explanation for chondrules, but
without understanding what causes lightning the idea died. The May 17 issue of New Scientist reports a new idea
from astrophysicist Frank Shu. He argues that meteorites were formed in furious winds that blew red-hot rock
out from the Sun at hundreds of kilometres per second. Lightning creates just such furious winds of heated
matter along the discharge channel. Shus explanation, on the other hand, suffers the usual lack of
understanding of plasma electrical behavior and relies, once more, on magnetic fields to perform the necessary
miracles.

Falks report notes that extrasolar giant planets are too close to their stars to have formed there from a
protoplanetary accretion disk. Rather than question the protoplanetary accretion disk model, the obvious
proposal is to have the giant planets migrate after their formation elsewhere. However, it does not explain the
orbital eccentricities. In our solar system, Uranus and Neptune are too far from the Sun to have formed where we
find them. Why have our giant planets seemingly migrated outward and the extrasolar planets inward? When
theoretical expectations fail scientists are required to re-examine all of the assumptions in their models.
However, that is not done when some assumptions have become self-evident truths.

Rocky start

From there on, the process is open to debate, with the answer partly depending on the size of the
disk. The core-accretion model, which dates from the 1960s, argues that planets start life as
small chunks of rock, dust and sand-grain-sized debris that come together through collisions. As
the rocky core grows, its gravitational pull scoops up more dust and gas from the disk. If the core
is heavier than a few Earth masses, it accretes enough gas over a few million years to become a
gas giant like Jupiter and Saturn. Less-massive cores result in rocky planets like Earth.

This model ran into problems even before extrasolar planets were identified. For one thing, it
seems to take too long. Accretion disks are thought to evaporate within a million years or so,
probably as a result of the stream of electrically charged particles that all stars emit, or of
bombardment from high-energy ultraviolet photons from other nearby stars.

Comment: Here is an additional assumption. Having somehow gravitationally formed an accretion disk we must
follow that with a special active stellar condition to blow it away after a convenient time interval. Studies have
shown that the stellar wind would merely shift the disk further away and not disperse it. Alfvn argued that the
most efficient (and Nature is nothing if not efficient) method to accrete matter over cosmic distances is that of the
electromagnetic pinch effect caused by parallel electric current filaments in plasma. The electromagnetic
accretion force diminishes slowly with distance from the filament axis, rather than rapidly with the square of the
distance as we find with gravity. The result is condensed, rotating objects strung along the dusty current
filaments. The spin axes of stars formed in this manner are aligned with the filaments. Such alignments have
been discovered in groups of stars.

The main rival theory, which also surfaced in the 1960s, avoids this problem. Known as the disk-
instability model, it proposes that, in larger disks, patches of denser gas can form and pull in
more gas leading, in some cases, to a sudden collapse that forms one or more planets. Such
collapses do not occur in the core-accretion model, either because the disk is not large enough to
produce them, or because any small instability that forms will tend to spread throughout the disk,
restoring stability.

Planets are thought to form more rapidly in the disk-instability scenario. Last autumn, Lucio
Mayer, a theoretical astronomer then at the University of Washington in Seattle, described high-
resolution computer simulations of protoplanetary disks using the disk-instability model. Together
with colleagues elsewhere in North America, Mayer showed that giant planets could form in as
5/9
 little as 1,000 years. The difference in planet-forming rates is probably the most important
distinguishing characteristic between the two models, and is a boost for the disk-instability idea,
says Alan Boss, a theoretical astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Others urge caution. Jack Lissauer, a planetary scientist at NASAs Ames Research Center in
Moffett Field, California, says that the resolution of the computer models is still too poor to give
conclusive results. Perhaps more importantly, the new data on extrasolar planets do not sit
happily with either theory. The models have trouble explaining, for example, why Jupiter-sized
planets are created rather than brown dwarfs objects that are intermediate in size between
planets and stars. You would expect the mass of planets to range from Jupiter mass up to stellar
masses, says Douglas Lin, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. There
ought to be just as many brown dwarfs as Jupiters orbiting Sun-like stars something that
observations have not turned up.

Comment: Computer simulations are fun but they have no significance if the models are wrong. The lack of
brown dwarf stars is expected in the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE model. In that model, stars are essentially a
plasma discharge phenomenon. A bright star usurps almost the entire electrical power in its vicinity.
Hypothetically, if Jupiter were to be removed beyond the Suns electrical influence it would become a more
electrically active brown dwarf star. Its moons would become a small planetary system orbiting a dim star. The
dull red shell, or anode glow, of a brown dwarf would surround most of the moons. The conditions for
establishment of atmospheres and life on those satellites within the glowing shell would likely be fulfilled. Just
like real estate, the prime requirement to become a star is LOCATION. A brown dwarf simply wont shine when
placed close to a bright star.

Unfortunately, astrophysicists and most plasma physicists never contemplate an electrically driven model
because they assume strict electrical neutrality throughout the universe. Meanwhile the observational evidence
shrieks of electric discharge effects in plasma. A few examples are: all X-ray sources; stupendously long glowing
filaments and jets; radiant nebulae with no effective internal energy source; and compact pulsating radiation
sources.

Inner workings

Other aspects of the new data are causing problems for both models. Neither, for example,
accounts for the proximity of the extrasolar planets to their stars. There isnt much material in the
inner region of the disk, and the particles there should have enough energy to resist clumping.
The solution, astronomers suggest, is that giant planets form farther out and then migrate inwards
as a result of interactions between the disk and the planet. The mechanism differs in the two
models, but the end result is that young planets sail through the disk towards the star.

But this raises another question: what stops the planet from ploughing into its parent star?
Several mechanisms have been suggested. One option is that the migration ends when the disk
evaporates but its not clear whether this can happen quickly enough, as migration occurs on a
roughly million-year time scale. Another option is that the planets gravitational pull distorts the
shape of the star, and that this in turn affects the pull of the star on the planet in such a way as to
balance the planets inward movement. Finally, it could be that the stars magnetic field clears out
the inner disk by repelling electrically charged particles. In this situation, says Boss, the inner 0.5
AU of the disk would be empty and few extrasolar planets have orbital radii much smaller than
this. Its attractively simple, says Boss.

Comment: If thats simple I would not like to see a complicated explanation! There comes a time when attempts
should be abandoned to reverse-engineer a doubtful model of the solar system to fit data from other planetary
systems. A far simpler explanation is that gas giant planets are born by electrical expulsion from a star in a nova
6/9
outburst. How else should we expect to find an extrasolar planet whipping around its parent in a few days or in
an eccentric orbit? Eccentric orbits should be short-lived. They hint at recent events in those distant planetary
systems; perhaps the birth of a new planet. Perhaps clockwork planetary systems that endure unchanged for
billions of years do not exist?

Such explanations are plausible, but there is no way of knowing which is correct. Even if this
issue is resolved, it is still unclear whether planets form by disk instability or by core accretion
before they begin their migration. And on top of that, astronomers are struggling to explain why so
many extrasolar planets follow elliptical paths, as both formation models predict roughly circular
orbits. The best explanation so far proposed is based on the gravitational tug-of-war between
different planets in a multi-planet system.

Comment: The problems arise because an inappropriate gravitational model is used in both cases. Granted that
a multi-planet system is inherently chaotic if gravity is the only force operating. But in an ELECTRIC
UNIVERSE there is a damping mechanism to limit wild excursions. It seems that exchange of charge between
planets via their magnetotails (plasma sheaths) is capable of maintaining orbital spacing so as to limit further
electrical interaction. This mechanism may provide a physical basis for Bodes relationship. And a planet moving
eccentrically in the weak electric field of a star suffers a cometary discharge that acts to reduce the eccentricity of
its orbit. The effect has been noted for tiny solar comets and mysteriously termed a non-gravitational force. It is
more effective than tidal interactions at circularising orbits.

Science rewrites Genesis

Present theories of the origin of the universe and the Earth have taken on the mantle of religious truth. It is as if
scientists feel obliged to provide an alternative scientific Genesis story to replace the biblical one. All that has
been achieved is a Hollywood rewrite complete with the obligatory stupendous explosion, an imaginary hell of
black holes and the occasional miracle to allow the plot to continue. The story has been limited by cultural
preconceptions and by restricting the writers to experts in one narrow specialty. The story is overdue for a
shake-up. The irony is that Genesis is only one version among many of a major evolutionary event in the history
of the solar system; a re-creation event witnessed by prehistoric man and memorialised by all of the earliest
civilizations. It has much to offer in a more general approach to discovering the real history of the Earth and the
origin of planets.

Meanwhile the astronomers script for Earth history is showing its age. It comes straight from the early Industrial
Revolution it is purely mechanical and clockwork-like with nary a hint of new-fangled electrics. Indeed there
are no electric lights at all! Dissenting electrical engineers and plasma physicists have been practically ignored. It
has fallen to the IEEE to establish a separate chapter of Plasma Cosmology, which now holds separate
meetings.

It has not been felt necessary to check the fundamental assumption that the present is the key to the past. No
astronomer is qualified to do a forensic examination of the earliest planetary mythologies and depictions of the
sky to see if that sky looks familiar. The fact is it doesnt! That renders all of the comfortable armchair theorizing
and computer simulations a nonsense. Mark Twain was right: There is something fascinating about
science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Computer modelling is usually only possible with a trifling investment of fact.

The Prehistoric Sky

A man receives only what he is ready to receive. . . . The phenomenon or fact that cannot in any
wise be linked with the rest of what he has observed, he does not observe.
Henry D. Thoreau

7/9
Throughout the ancient world the star between the horns of a crescent was an important
religious symbol. Yet it is physically impossible if the crescent represented the Moon.
What is more, the apparition was universally reported to have occupied the top of a
tapering column of light in the motionless center of the northern sky the north celestial
pole where the Moon never goes. It was often pictured as a figure with arms
stretching upwards.

The north celestial pole was commemorated by all ancient cultures as the home of the
prehistoric sun and the planetary gods. A true history of the Earth must explain these
astronomical enigmas. And a true history of the Earth is necessary before we can
speculate meaningfully about planet origins.

Like a man was the sun when it showed itself, and its face glowed when it dried the surface of
the earthIt showed itself when it was born and remained fixed in the sky like a mirror. Certainly
it was not the same sun which we see, it is said in their old tales.
D. Goetz & S. Morley, Popol Vuh, 1972, p. 188.

The detail (left) in these early renditions shows a raised central hemisphere in front of another radiating star-like
body, superimposed upon a crescent.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that a better theory of the formation of planets

requires the observational skills of astronomers, the forensic input
of comparative mythologists, the theoretical input from plasma
physicists and the practical experimental capabilities of electrical
engineers. Most importantly, the common thread for this
interdisciplinary approach is provided by the new paradigm of an
ELECTRIC UNIVERSE. But we should keep in mind that the odd
natures of the planets in our solar system argue for a complex history that may never be entirely amenable to
computer modelling. The orbital and axial tilts of the giant planets are strong evidence for one or more capture
events. Perhaps we may be able to determine a planetary genealogy?

It is possible that this new era also means a partial return to more understandable physics. For
the nonspecialists, four-dimensional relativity tbeory and the indeterminism of atom structure
8/9
 have always been mystic and difficult to understand. I believe that it is easier to explain the 33
instabilities in plasma physics or the resonance structure of the solar system. The increased
emphasis on the new fields means a certain demystification of physics. In the spiral or trochoidal
motion which science makes during the centuries, its guiding center has returned to these regions
from where it started. It was the wonders of the night sky, observed by Indians, Sumerians, or
Egyptians, that started science several thousand years ago. It was the question why the
wanderers the planets moved as they did that triggered off the scientific avalanche several
hundred years ago. The same objects are now again in the center of science only the questions
we ask are different. We now ask how to go there, and we also ask how these bodies once were
formed. And if the night sky on which we observe them is at a high latitude, outside this lecture
hall perhaps over a small island in the archipelago of Stockholm we may also see in the sky
an aurora, which is a cosmic plasma, reminding us of the time when our world was born out of
plasma. Because in the beginning was the plasma.
H. Alfvn, Science 4 June 1971. From a lecture he delivered in Stockholm, Sweden, on 11 Dec
1970 when he received the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Wal Thornhill

Print this page

9/9